Steven Dilks (Executor of the Estate of Eldred Grocock Deceased) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Hearing dates: 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, November 2025

JUDGMENT Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 30/01/2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Christopher Kennedy KC (DHCJ):

Introduction

The Claimant in this case is the executor of Eldred Grocock deceased. Mr Grocock was born on 8 August 1939 and died on 5 January 2023. The cause of his death was a malignant mesothelioma, which he developed as a result of exposure to asbestos. It is the Claimant's case that that exposure occurred during the course of the deceased's work as a mobile plant operator for the National Coal Board (‘the Coal Board’). The Defendant is the successor in title to the Coal Board.

The deceased worked for the Coal Board between March 1967 and January 1988. He was based at Williamthorpe colliery (“Williamthorpe”). Williamthorpe had ceased to be a working colliery shortly after the deceased started. The site was turned into a storage site with repair shops and offices. Mobile plant was based there and deployed throughout the North Derbyshire Area. The deceased's work took him therefore to other collieries in the Coal Board's North Derbyshire Area which were still working.

One item of mobile plant was a machine known as a grader. This was what the deceased drove most of the time. It was used on spoil heaps, primarily to produce a secure and level surface for the dumper trucks and bulldozers. It had a blade like a snow plough blade in the middle and a bulldozer attachment at the front. On the smaller spoil heaps, where there were no bulldozers, graders were also used to push spoil and waste over the edge of the existing spoil heap to form the new layer of waste.

Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim sets out the Claimant's case as to the circumstances of the deceased's exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment. It is pleaded that this happened in five ways,

i) when asbestos waste including cement sheets, asbestos lagging and asbestos laggedpipes was loaded into a dumper truck he was operating;

ii) when he emptied the asbestos waste collected in the dumper truck he was operatingonto the spoil heap;

iii) as he drove over the asbestos waste including asbestos cement sheets, asbestos laggingand asbestos pipes, and as he crushed, compressed and compacted it into the ground;

iv) As he worked in the vicinity of others clearing asbestos waste to the edges of thespoil heap;

v) As he worked in the vicinity of colleagues doing the tasks set out at (i) to (iii) above;

Some important issues are now common ground. The deceased did not drive a dumper truck regularly. Asbestos waste formed a very small proportion of the overall loads taken to the spoil heaps. The loading and unloading of dumper trucks was done mechanically. Taken together these three matters make the deceased's exposure to asbestos in the first or second pleaded way unlikely. There is also no evidence to support the proposition that he was exposed to asbestos whilst working in the vicinity of others. The Claimant's focus has therefore been on the third way pleaded, that the deceased drove over asbestos waste and that crushed, compressed and compacted it. The deceased did not operate a bulldozer whilst he worked for the Coal Board. If he was exposed as pleaded, that would only have happened whilst he was operating a grader.

There is no direct evidence from the deceased concerning his exposure to asbestos and I am not invited to find that he was exposed on specific occasions. Rather, the Claimant's case is that disposal of asbestos waste was a regular occurrence on the Coal Board's spoil heaps, and because the deceased operated a grader on them, it is probable that he was exposed as the crushing, compressing and compacting would have generated asbestos dust in his cab. This therefore is a case where my findings on the issue of exposure are central and I turn to them before considering what implications they have for the issues of breach of duty, causation and quantum.

Evidence as to exposure to asbestos

On behalf of the Claimant, I heard oral evidence from three of his colleagues, Mr Geoffrey Norton, a fitter/mechanic who had worked with the deceased at Williamthorpe from 1973, Mr Alan Crossley, another fitter/mechanic who had worked at Williamthorpe from 1976, and Mr John Bird, a fellow driver, who started work at Williamthorpe in 1983. They were all still there when the deceased retired in early 1988. I also heard from the Claimant himself. He is the deceased's nephew and executor. Ms Deborah Reshad, a long-time family friend of the deceased, also gave evidence for the Claimant but her testimony related solely to quantum.

On behalf of the Defendant, I heard evidence from another of the deceased's colleagues, Mr William Preston. He had worked with the deceased from 1970, so not long after he started. Mr Preston held various managerial roles during the course of the deceased's employment. He was a deputy manager at Williamthorpe when the deceased retired and he ultimately became the manager there.

I also heard evidence from four other witnesses called on behalf of the Defendant, Mr Geoffrey Vardey, who worked in the South Nottinghamshire Area, Mr Bryan Gill, who worked in various Yorkshire Areas, Mr David Owen and Mr David Bishop who both worked in the North Nottinghamshire Area. The statement of Mr Brian Addy who worked in the North and South Yorkshire Areas was also served as hearsay evidence. Mr Preston apart, none of the Defendant's witnesses knew the deceased or had worked in the North Derbyshire Area.

Mr Norton's work as a fitter/mechanic brought him into contact with the deceased, both at Williamthorpe, when the deceased brought vehicles in for service or repair, and when Mr Norton himself went out to repair vehicles on site. He had come across the deceased at two collieries, Markham and Bolsover. Mr Norton thought that the deceased would also have worked at other collieries in the North Derbyshire Area but he had not seen him elsewhere.

Mr Norton gave evidence about the disposal of asbestos lagging and asbestos lagged pipes at Williamthorpe. They were dumped on the spoil heap, as were pieces of damaged corrugated sheeting, which also contained asbestos. Mr Norton accepted in cross-examination that the volume of such waste was small. He attempted to put a percentage figure on the amount of asbestos waste compared to spoil but this was clearly an exercise he had not been asked to do in advance and the figure he provided was not a meaningful one.

Mr Norton was able to give evidence about the circumstances whereby the asbestos waste was generated. Some boilers at Williamthorpe were dismantled after the pit was closed and the broken up parts were disposed of on the spoil heap. That waste included asbestos lagging. Separately, from time to time, bits of lagging on the remaining boilers and pipes broke off and, finally, small sections would be deliberately taken off for inspection purposes. Doing the best he could, Mr Norton thought both the latter events would happen on a monthly basis, not every week but ‘as and when’. The waste was placed in a barrow before being taken to a large waste area, separate from the bunkers which took the coal spoil. There it was loaded mechanically into a dumper truck before being taken to the spoil heap.

Mr Norton accepted the suggestion that there would have come a time when the lagging at Williamthorpe did not contain asbestos but that would not have been until the Coal Board had used up the asbestos mix it had, of which there was a considerable stock. Doing the best he could Mr Norton thought that happened after 15 years, so in the late 1980s.

Mr Norton recalled that waste taken to the spoil heap was dumped by the dumper trucks on the existing edge. It was then flattened and compressed by bulldozers and graders. The work was dusty. Whilst the cabs of the graders were some six feet above the ground, it was necessary to keep the windows open, particularly in hot weather. There was no meaningful attempt to reduce dust until the very end of his employment.

Mr Norton recalled the deceased driving dumper trucks at Williamthorpe but not often. He was one of the operators who was allowed to move plant on the public roads and, when back at Williamthorpe, he was prepared to help out if he had brought a vehicle there from another colliery and he was not in a rush to get back. This was not a regular occurrence.

Mr Crossley was another fitter based at Williamthorpe. He recalled that the deceased mainly drove a grader. Doing the best he could he saw the deceased around three times a year. He gave a similar description to Mr Norton of how the waste was deposited by dumper trucks. The trucks dumped the waste around 10 yards from the edge because if they got closer there was a risk they would go over the side. The graders then pushed the waste to the edge, drove over it and crushed it to make the ground flat.

Mr Crossley recalls asbestos waste (lagging and sheets) being dumped on spoil heaps. He particularly mentioned this happening at Markham Colliery, in large part because of an arrangement with Coalite, a chemical company next door, which was permitted to dispose of its waste on the Markham spoil...